This is the personal blog of Ian Ker, who was Councillor for the South Ward of the Town of Vincent from 1995 to 2009. I have been a resident of this area since 1985. This blog was originally conceived as a way of letting residents of Vincent know what I have been doing and sharing thoughts on important issues. I can now use it to sound off about things that concern me.

If you want to contact me, my e-mail is still ian_ker@hotmail.com or post a comment on this blog.

To post a comment on this blog, select the individual post on which you wish to comment, by clicking on the title in the post or in the list to the left of the blog, and scroll down to the 'Post a Comment' box at the foot.

Search This Blog

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Reading Between The Lines…

The three newly-advertised 'proposals' from the LGAB for local government so-called reform (see previous post on this blog) suggest that the Board is trying to base its recommendations on local government and community proposals rather than those submitted by the Minister for Local Government - presumably to attempt to distance its recommendations from any criticism of the ministerial proposals. Whether, in fact, it achieves that will depend on the outcome of the legal action currently under way.

This approach, in any case, does raise other important questions.

When faced by two local government proposals that have the same boundaries, how will the LGAB choose which to recommend? This is the case with Belmont and Kalamunda - the critical difference between them is that the Kalamunda proposal would give electors the opportunity to call for a poll on the matter whereas the Belmont one describes it as a 'boundary extension' to the City of Belmont. That is an interesting description when Belmont is (a) only 10% of the area of the proposed new local government and (b) the population of Belmont is only 40% of that of the proposed new entity.

Both Belmont and Kalamunda are included in their entirety, it is difficult to see how this could be described in any other way than as an amalgamation.

The second question raised relates to the definition of what constitutes 'significantly different from the proposals into which the LGAB inquired', for there are many examples of spatial differences between local government proposals - including, for example, the vexed question of Burswood, which is 'claimed' by both the City of Perth and the Town of Victoria Park/City of South Perth proposals. Being a natural sceptic (some would say cynic), I'm inclined to the view that here the LGAB will recommend the Minister's proposal simply to avoid the triggering of the poll provision - the Vic Park/South Perth proposal is described as an amalgamation.

The same applies to the City of Vincent and the City of Perth proposals, with Perth only wanting the asset-rich southern part of Vincent and only Vincent describing the proposal as amalgamation.

Here We Go Again - LGAB Muddies The Waters Even More

 The Local Government Advisory Board has advertised three of its intended recommendations that are 'significantly different' from proposals into which it inquired. Its advert, including how to make submissions, is at right here and the revised maps are at the foot of this post.

As with so much else in this debacle of a 'process' (and I use the word loosely), these 'intended recommendations' muddy the water rather than clarify matters.

Just as with the original Ministerial proposals there is insufficient information. There is no text (other than a simple description of the changes to boundaries from the original proposals), only maps - the 'intended recommendations' that are 'significantly different from the proposals into which the LGAB inquired' do not provide the information required for a proposal in the first place. How are individuals, organisations and local Councils supposed to comment when there is no information on the basis on which the LGAB is recommending the changes?

Schedule 2.1 Clause 6 Para 2 of the Local Government Act 1995 states that the Board must afford "adequate opportunity for submissions to be made about the intended order" - surely 'adequate opportunity' must include not only time but also information. If we do not know why the LGAB is recommending these variations, how can we be said to have 'adequate opportunity' to make submissions?

Amended proposal 5 (the original proposal was made by the City of Armadale) now covers the whole of both Armadale and Serpentine-Jarrahdale. Why is this not, therefore, an amalgamation - especially as Cockburn-Kwinana is now described in those terms despite the loss of some of Cockburn? 

Amended Proposal 10 (Melville) excludes a large part of the City of Canning than was included in the original proposal. If, as seems likely, the LGAB is going to recommend the City of Gosnells proposal that incorporates most of the current City of Canning, why does this not then become an amalgamation (despite its description as a boundary change in the City of Gosnells proposal) - especially as Cockburn-Kwinana is now described in those terms despite the loss of some of Cockburn?

Amended Proposal E1 (Cockburn Community submitted the original proposal) presumably accepts at least some of the arguments for keeping Cockburn together - but it also, presumably, considers that Fremantle's 'need' for lebensraum outweighs the wishes of the Cockburn community. It would be helpful to know how the Board reached this conclusion.
Click on map to enlarge
Click on map to enlarge


Click on map to enlarge

Monday, July 21, 2014

When People Do Get A Say…

In yet another demonstration of how people really feel about the local government so-called reform that is being forced on them by the State Government, ratepayers of South Perth voted unanimously to disengage from the 'reform' process last Wednesday (16th July). 

John McGrath, South Perth Liberal MLA, inevitably seemed rather uncomfortable - and to be fair, his position is somewhat invidious - but was able to point to initiatives he had taken to raise concerns about the process. 

He specifically stated his disagreement over the proposed transfer of Burswood to the City of Perth as this would require substantial rate increases for both Victoria Park and South Perth in the event they were amalgamated.

He refused to be drawn by suggestions that he might stand as an independent at the next state election, but kept giving clear indications that he is not at one with his government on this by his repeated us of the phrase "they say". In response to a question of whether he would be willing to support a private members bill to disallow forced amalgamations, he replied that he would 'be willing to consider it'.

Most tellingly, he clearly stated that he didn't believe that the Government should be forcing changes on the people of South Perth without their having the right to vote on them. His view is that the Dadour clause should always be used where there is substantial amalgamation.

City of South Perth Deputy Mayor, Glenn Cridland, gave an informed commentary on the process to-date and why the City had become a party to legal action challenging the process.

The meeting passed, unanimously, the following two resolutions:

1. That the meeting calls on the Government to at the earliest opportunity amend the Local Government Act to prevent any amalgamation of councils by a process of artificial boundary change without ratepayers having the democratic right to vote as to their acceptance or otherwise.

2. The meeting requests that the City of South Perth notify the Local Government Advisory Board (LGAB) that the City no longer supports an amalgamation with Victoria Park or any other amalgamation or boundary change and therefore withdraws its support for the joint proposal submitted in October 2013.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

LGAB Delay Threatens Government Timetable

With the Local Government Advisory Board telling Minister Homer Simpson that its recommendations will be delayed because of the complexity of the task it has been handed, WALGA President, Troy Pickard is rightly concerned that "having a critical step in this process delayed at the last moment…[will]…only further exacerbate the uncertainty for staff and Elected Members".

In what could be seen as a somewhat more conciliatory mode to Councils for Democracy than his previous rant, he apparently accepts that disengagement can be legitimate and goes on to say "To ensure that Councils remain engaged there needs to be a more complete explanation and outline of how the delay will affect the process and the consequent expectations of local governments".

The delay announced by the LGAB is no doubt necessary for it to do its job properly - and the Board is to be commended for recognising this - but it exposes the arrogance of the Government's setting a firm timetable for its Metropolitan Local Government (so-called) Reform Process from the start.

It also calls into question whether the Local Government Advisory Board process was the appropriate way of going about achieving such fundamental and far-reaching change to local government in the Metropolitan Area.

Troy's Two-Bob Each Way

Hot on the heels of a rant attacking Councils for Democracy as irrational, divisive and polarising (much of which was published verbatim by Kate Emery in the We(s)t Australian on Saturday), WALGA President, Troy Pickard now wants to ensure that "communities significantly affected by Council boundary adjustments get the opportunities to vote on the proposed changes".

At the same time, he gives the game away by saying such change would take time - but should be in place to protect country local governments from Homer Simpson's extension of forced 'boundary adjustments' to country areas.

Those of us in the metropolitan area, however, should simply accept that the process gone too far - and should simply roll over and die.

Well, Troy, that isn't going to happen.

Of course, it is possible that the Local Government Advisory Board will recommend that all the Minister's proposals should be regarded as amalgamations and therefore trigger the Dadour poll provision. It has the power to do this.

We can but hope.
West Australian, 12th July 2014
West Australian 15th July 2014


Monday, July 14, 2014

Cop-Out By The Auditor-General

A while back, I asked the Auditor-General whether he would investigate the Department of Local Government and the Local Government Advisory Board over the forcing of local government amalgamations without any assessment of costs and benefits (http://ianrker-vincent.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/a-request-to-wa-auditor-general.html) - along the lines of his criticism of the administration of the Royalties for Regions program.

Predictably, his response is that he will do nothing. He replied, on 7th July:

As your email notes, it is my role to scrutinise the public sector for potential instances of wastage, inefficiency or ineffectiveness, and to report the findings to the Western Australian Parliament.  However, it is not my role to assess the decisions of government.

A common misunderstanding is that the Auditor General can criticise government policy. By convention, the Auditor General will not comment on or criticise government policy as this risks politicising the position and diminishing my perceived independence. However, what I can do is assess whether government policy has been effectively implemented.

As such, there is no scope for us to look into the decisions by the Minister for Local Government in relation to Local Government reform.

This misses the point entirely - my request was about the implementation of policy without either a business case or guaranteed funding. So I responded, on the same day, as below:
No reply yet!

The Nature Of Power

Just make the appropriate changes to geography and names - and Queensland in 2007 becomes WA in 2014.

The key difference is that it was Labor in Queensland in 2007 that was forcing amalgamations. In 2014, it's the Lib-Nats in Western Australia.

Perhaps this says more about the nature of power than it does about political philosophies.

In 2007, it was the Lib-Nats (Dr Bruce Flegg, see video below) supporting the protestors in Queensland. 
In 2014, where is Labor in WA - at least since the 8th April rally at Parliament House. 

In 2014, the Queensland Lib-Nats have supported local communities in allowing de-amalgamations. Why has the ALP in WA not promised to do this?
Thanks to Cr Julie Mathieson, City of Subiaco, for drawing my attention to this via her blog, 'Local Govt and Subiaco - Why should we care?' (http://localgovtsubiaco.wordpress.com)

Thursday, July 10, 2014

A Whiff Of Desperation

Do I detect a whiff of desperation - not to mention defamation - in the statement that rates were paid "for services and not to have individuals go to court for their own reasons".

The only individual in the court action is myself - and I certainly don't get any money from rates. For the other parties, decisions were made by Councils after due process and not by individuals. It seems that Col doesn't appreciate the meaning of collective decision-making and collective responsibility - but I think we already knew that.

Barnett is also quoted as saying that ratepayers were "entitled" to be angry about using their money to go to courts - but not, apparently, entitled to be angry about being forced to fund amalgamations they don't want and that have not been demonstrated to have any benefits for them.
Western Suburbs Weekly, 8th July 2014

Government Should Lead By Example

Not my words, this time - but you've seen the arguments here before.

The Minister in supervising local governments, and to establish a standard of proper conduct, ought to perform his own functions under the LG Act not only properly, but in a manner that is exemplary.

By lodging the 12 proposals, apparently crafted to avoid multiple district abolitions in all except the western suburbs (where no amount of subtlety or ingenuity could avoid it), the question could be asked as to whether the Minister has performed his function properly.

Given the example the Minister’s conduct must provide to local governments as to proper performance of their functions, the Minister ought to have insisted that the proposals prepared for him were, on their face and by their effect, honest, forthright, fair and not calculated to abort a critically important democratic guarantee which the Parliament has embedded in the LG Act.

…for the Minister to initiate a change to local government boundaries affecting 27 of the 30 metropolitan local governments without ensuring in advance that the radical changes would be fully funded, would in ordinary circumstances be seen as very bad governance. 

More From Your Friendly GP

Fresh from his front-page exploits of yesterday, allowing Colin Barnett to expose his paranoia for the world to see, Gareth Parker produces the perfect encore today with Barnett's strategy for ensuring that the Liberal Party will have no option but to 'draft' him again as leader for the 2017 election.

Get rid of Kim Hames, by calling him on his stated intention to retire, and Col is confident that there is no other Liberal parliamentarian who could feasibly replace him. What a terrible indictment of the state of WA party politics that is.

Where is Our Madame Defarge?

Col Pot said a while back that people didn't read the detail of what politicians promised at election time. Perhaps he was simply reflecting his own approach to (ignoring) reality.

More than likely, then, that he will not 'read the detail' of the letters that even the We(s)t Australian couldn't avoid printing today in response to his moaning about grumpy (aka ungrateful) people in yesterday's paper.

If there is a 'guillotine for an emperor', let's seek out our own Madame Defarge, who famously knitted during public executions in Charles Dickens' novel, A Tale of Two Cities'.

It seems that the knitting represented the fact that they were not women of leisure like the upper classes being executed. They needed to spend all available times knitting garments for their families. Perhaps there is a message here, also, for the elitist Abbott government in Canberra.

Wednesday, July 9, 2014

If You State The Truth Often Enough…

Josef Goebbels infamously said that:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Well, I believe the converse is also true: If you state the truth often enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually accept it and recognise the lies for what they are.

It is, of course, more difficult and requires more perseverance than the State telling lies, because the media mainly kowtow to the power of the State. Thus, while not actively repressing dissent, governments limit the opportunities for its expression. With the notable exception of the ABC, this is very obvious at both State and Federal levels in Australia.

The Perth community is finding its voice - and the ramifications will reverberate well beyond the resolution of the local government so-called reform process. 

I was very encouraged to read, today, this comment by a respected legal practitioner:
The action recently commenced in the Supreme Court by a concerned citizen and three affected local governments will, amongst other things, shine a spotlight on the Minister’s performance of his functions in relation to the 12 proposals. Win or lose, the action will provide an opportunity for public scrutiny and consideration of the fairness and propriety of the Minister’s actions in the allegedly unforced amalgamation process. Every right thinking person must applaud the fact that a process which would radically alter the structure of metropolitan local government, has the chance to be subjected to independent scrutiny by the Supreme Court.

This is but the beginning. Make no mistake, disillusionment with governments and politicians is real - and is transforming into a grass-roots movement to put democracy back into our political system.

Who's Grumpy, Col? Respect Must Be Earned

Colin Barnett, in his latest rant published on the front page of his lackey newspaper, the Wet Australian, blames everyone but himself for the problems of his government.

It isn't what the government has done that's the problem, he bemoans, it's all the ungrateful people out there who don't appreciate what he has been doing for us.

Well, I've got news for you, Col - what we don't appreciate is what you've been doing to us. You care nothing for our concerns, our aspirations and our views - you just do what you want and disregard the rest of us.

Interesting that you don't even mention the farce of local government so-called reform you and your Minion/Minister, Homer Simpson, are attempting to force on the people of the metropolitan area.

You seem to be developing a pattern of behaviour of distancing yourself from issues when things start to go wrong. You did it with the Midland Health Campus ("why didn't somebody tell me earlier") despite evidence that you clearly were aware at the time of awarding the contract - and even if you hadn't been aware, as Premier you should have been aware of such a critical matter in a billion-dollar-plus contract.

Are you now doing the same with Homer - setting the scene to hang him out to dry when your local government house of cards collapses under its own contradictions?

You complain also about the use of the term "Emperor" as being disrespectful to the office of Premier. Well, Col, just look at how it is used - it's specific to you and has never been used for any other Premier, to the best of my knowledge. I don't know anyone who uses the term to be disrespectful of the office - it is simply a description of the style of the person who currently occupies that office.

Personal respect has to be earned, Mr Premier - and you have not earned it.

Monday, July 7, 2014

Minister Still Doesn't Get It

The whole of the Metropolitan Local Government Reform Update this week is devoted to the legal action lodged with the Supreme Court by myself, the City of Subiaco, the City of South Perth and the Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale.

I do not intend to comment here on a number of points in the Update that actually appear to support contentions of the legal action, but I cannot let pass the Minister's rather naive comments on the situation in South Perth without response.

On the one hand, he commends the 'engagement between the council and their community' with regard to a possible name for a new entity. On the other hand, he is critical (not surprisingly) of the South Perth Council's 'joining the legal action to stop mergers'.

Does he not realise the extent to which the legal action is supported by communities - not just South Perth but across the metropolitan area?

Does he think that the South Perth Council is so out of touch with its community that it made the decision in direct opposition to community views?

Equally important, does he not see how councils might find it necessary to protest against the process, through legal action, while also seeking the best outcome for their communities should the action fail? This is responsible risk management that Mr Simpson really should support.

Life is not always simple, Mr Simpson, and sometimes we have to hedge our bets. That councils like South Perth (and others that have not joined the legal action) find it necessary to go along with your process while having a primary position that opposes reduction in council numbers for the sake of it is no more than a responsible response to your simplistic strategy of reducing council numbers rather than helping councils achieve what they are there for more effectively.

Saturday, July 5, 2014

More Than Coincidence?

In what must rank as one of the greatest coincidences of all time, the Wet Australian [deliberate 'error' there], after all but ignoring the groundswell of concern and anger about local government so-called reform for months, suddenly publishes a full-page 'opinion' just four days after legal action is launched against the Minister and the Local Government Advisory Board - and yet barely mentions the legal action itself.

Has someone been exerting influence on the Wet A? Or is it simply its natural prejudice coming to the fore?

This so-called opinion piece has to be one of the worst-researched and argued pieces I have seen in a long time. If I were a teacher in high school, I wouldn't fail it - it is so bad I would tell the writer to go away and start again.

I once had a colleague who started a book review with the words: "This book should never have been written". I don't know whether that was fair comment on the book, as it wasn't in my area of knowledge or expertise - but it is certainly the case that this opinion piece should never have been written - not because I disagree with much of it, but because it destroys the credibility of the very case the writer is trying to make.

It is full of vague assertions and the only source the writer mentions is the widely-discredited Robson report. And those parts of the Robson report she does use are nothing to do with the current government push to create larger councils, but are matters that could be addressed with the current structure - and would need to be addressed even if the number of councils were reduced.

Has the writer used any sources other than her own prejudices? If so, she should have the sense to mention them if she wants her work to be taken seriously.

She bemoans the breakdown of relationships between councils and administrations that "have been at the heart of several council implosions", but ignores the fact that these implosions have affected both large and small councils - and very few of either.

And to conclude that "the debate must be widened beyond individual councils trying to protect their boundaries" and to plagiarise the Minister's threats as "those who believe local government reform is unnecessary may not survive to see it happen" demonstrates an abysmal ignorance of the basis for community and local council concerns about the process, the bullying and the illogical current proposals.

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Real Numbers Starting To Appear On Costs

The Town of Victoria Park had budgeted $750,000 for 2014-15 for costs associated with local government so-called reform.

The City of Fremantle has budgeted $1 million for 2014-15.

Both these sums are for issues to be addressed before the new entities are even created. We all know that most of the costs will come from July 2015 onwards should the forced changes go ahead.

If these are typical, we, the ratepayers, are looking at up to $30 million before the nitty-gritty implementation of changes. Given that Victoria Park and Fremantle are smaller than average for metropolitan local governments (just over 3% of population), we could be looking at many times that.

The Proverbial Limp Lettuce Leaf

Typically for the West Australian, the lodging of action with the Supreme Court, merited only four paragraphs at the foot of page 5 and largely peddled the Minister's line.

Blink and you miss it.

No surprise there, as the West (or should that be the Wet Australian?) only deemed the previous day's story (second item on the ABC TV News) as worthy of an even smaller item at the foot of page 13.

Still, if this is what counts as 'hitting back', it really is like being hit with the proverbial limp lettuce leaf.

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Victoria Park People Power

Tuesday night, despite a late meeting time (8.30pm), Victoria Park residents packed the Town Administration building to express their deep concern at the direction being taken by their Council in the State Government's local government so-called reform process. Residents had called the special meeting by petition.
Mayor Vaughan told the meeting that the Town had surveyed residents and found that 65% wanted to the Town to remain as is.   However, in July 2013 Minister Simpson told them that they would be forced to amalgamate so they began negotiations with South Perth.
Five motions were moved by the Victoria Park Residence Association convener Andy Cooper (0419 955 586) and all were passed with overwhelming support.   The Mayor committed the Council to consider the motions within the next month.

All five motions were carried by overwhelming majorities:


That the Town of Victoria Park adopt a policy position to retain the town with its current gazetted boundaries. Passed  99-8
That the Town of Victoria Park suspend immediately any further activity and expenditure on the State government's reform process until a final decision is made on the future of the town. Passed  102-7
That the 2014 - 2015 budget be amended to remove the amount of $750,000 being the sum allocated to fund the State Government reform process. Passed  104-4
That the Town seek advice from the Mayors Alliance of councils for democracy on legal options on the extent of alleged illegality or abuse of process undertaken by the local government advisory board already available to the Alliance in which members and seek access to those opinions. Passed  111-1 
That the town of Victoria Park allocate some of $50,000 to be used to obtain legal advice and assist with any action to suspend the operation of the local government advisory board. Passed  104-0
Thanks to Malcolm Mummery for this write up (to which I have made a few minor changes).
Now it's over to the Victoria Park Council, which has to consider these motions either at its next meeting or as soon as possible thereafter. Acting CEO, Anthony Vuletta, said that he would try to get them on the agenda for the next Council meeting (Tuesday 8th July) but that normally such matters would be presented at a Council briefing a week beforehand - and the briefing for the 8th July meeting had been held earlier that evening.
Not sure I go along with that excuse, as the Special Electors Meeting could have been held earlier - in fact, Tuesday 1st July was the last date on which it could be held, being 28 days* (close to the maximum 35 days) after submission of the petition allowed by the Local Government Act (Clause 5.28).

* Corrected 8th July 2014. The original posting stated that the meeting was held the full 35 days after submission of the petition.